CubeSats and Mission Success: A Look at the Numbers

Transcription

1 CubeSats and Mission Success: A Look at the Numbers Michael Parks College of Engineering, Aviation & Technology Saint Louis University 2016 CubeSat Developers Workshop 20 April 2016

2 Motivation and Agenda CubeSats: Toys, tools or debris cloud? Opportunities Missions: Single-instrument science, constellations Schedule: Concept-to-operations in under 24 months Modularity: Form-factor forcing standardized parts Risks Capabilities: Reports are confusing, conflated, and/or apocryphal Cost-to-performance: Is it good? What is good? Go Fever: CubeSats viewed as magic solution Agenda Define terms Key snapshots Shameless plea for better data

3 Terms CubeSat Containerized spacecraft (P-POD >> standardized parts) More-or-less compatible with CubeSat Design Spec Organization Types (I need better names!) Hobbyists SmallSatters Traditionalists (e.g., large contractors) Commercial constellations (Planet Labs, SPIRE)

4 CubeSats Launched ( )

5 CubeSat By Nation ( ) Launch Provider Builder ISS CubeSats By Launch Provider ISS (131) USA (178) Russia (81) India (20) Not shown: Europe (8) Japan (10) China (7)

6 CubeSat by Mission Developer Type

7 CubeSat by Mission Type

8 CubeSat Mission Type by Developer Class ( ) SmallSatters (125) Traditionalists (32) Hobbyists (131)

9 New Definition: Mission Status Mission status increments at each milestone 0 Prelaunch (Cancelled) 1. Launched (Launch failure) 2. Deployed (Dead on Arrival) 3. Contacted (Premature Failure) 4. Commissioned (Partial Mission Success) 5. Primary mission complete (Mission Success) A mission that stalls at one status is given a success/failure assessment

10 CubeSat Mission Status, by Developer Class (Except for Planet Labs) All Missions (288) All missions reaching orbit (245) Traditionalists (32) SmallSatters (101) Hobbyists (112)

11 Why the discrepancy? Traditionalists: You get what you pay for! SmallSatters: Failures appear to be a result of ambitious technology infusion (i.e., acceptable losses) Hobbyists: [My reckless, semi-informed speculation] Lack of time spent on integration & test Workmanship (?) Uncaptured best practices?

12 QA Approach: Because I Said So! Mission Space Development Approaches that Lead to Mission Failure Standard CubeSat Acceptance Testing Industry Best Practices Hobbyists Best Practices

13 Please, tell your friends or tell me, so I can ask them!

14 Acknowledgements Census Data Sources Public: Gunter s Space Page (international launch log) Public: Jonathan s Space Report (orbital elements) Public: DK3WN Satblog (university/amateur operations) Public: Union of Concerned Scientists (operational status) Public: Bryan Klofas Public: Program websites, conference presentations Private: Personal communications Support AFOSR / UNP (original work) NASA NEPP (ongoing)

15 CubeSats and Mission Success: A Look at the Numbers Michael Parks College of Engineering, Aviation & Technology Saint Louis University 2016 CubeSat Developers Workshop 20 April 2016

16 How are they reaching orbit? Launch Attempts Per Year, Worldwide

17 How are they reaching orbit? Launch Attempts Per Year, Worldwide Launch Attempts with Secondaries

18 How are they reaching orbit? Launch Attempts Per Year, Worldwide Launch Attempts with Secondaries Secondaries Launched

19 That s a Lot of Secondaries a whole lot of secondaries! More secondaries than primaries in ISS is capable of releasing 100+ per year ULA, others making 24U standard for launches We haven t seen the peak Is there a business case for a dedicated launcher? Lots of CubeSats are freeloaders Would you rather have control over a 24-month launch schedule, or pay (much?) less for a ride 6 months out?